Dear Brad, Kaye and Phil,
We are more and more disappointed in the way the MPS transportation contract is proceeding. They have not come close to fulfilling their current contract, and they appear ready to come in to your work session tomorrow with a broad-brush report that does little to resolve obstacles they found. They appear ready to talk at length about FCPS transportation efficiency and complexity, which doesn't move us forward, and then to outline scenarios and their worst-case resource drain without factoring in any solutions or efficiencies. There is nothing here like a recommendation for the lowest-cost countyside solution to the problem, because that hasn't been done.
Based on the report to the CAC on Oct. 26, which was at least more detailed than the one of School Board will get Monday, we have the attached comments about the work to date. We continue to have many, many questions about their work, among them why we have made no countywide assessment nor recommendation.
Their mission was to find the lowest cost solution; their report tomorrow highlights what they say in the CAC report is the highest cost possible of a revised scenario, using current routes, making no attempt to find cost-savings and using an approach that makes it impossible to capture unused capacity in the pyramids they studied. We note that they don't label it the highest cost in what they will present to the School Board tomorrow (according to what appears on BoardDocs).
We call on you to require MPS to fulfill its current contract, as outlined in the attached. If you plan to extend the contract, the work should be comprehensive and result in a countywide restructuring of FCPS transportation to support later start times. As MPS notes, our system has evolved and remained efficient through adaptation, not design. Let's finally design the system to meet and fulfill the needs of our students rather than the bus system.
Cordially,
Sandy Evans and Phyllis Payne, MPH
Co-Founders, SLEEP (Start Later for Excellence in Education Proposal)
or ;
703-538-2783 (Sandy); 703-207-9277 (Phyllis)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SLEEP Comments on MPS Oct. 26, 2005, Presentation to Community Advisory Committee
Nov. 6, 2005
We are concerned that this study has not yet fulfilled its goal, to recommend the best, most cost-efficient method of achieving later high school start times.
The School Board’s funding amendment stated that the study will “find cost-effective alternatives” for later secondary school start times. The RFP stated in the scope of the contract that the consultant would “recommend changes that would support later start times for secondary schools.” The MPS work plan (June 9, 2005, p. 14) says MPS will “recommend the option that most closely meets the project objective to allow high schools to start at a later time while minimizing the use (of) transportation resources…”
Issue 1: Fulfillment of Current Contract
We need MPS to fulfill its current work plan, including:
Solid proposals to minimize transit time and transportation costs.
A recommendation for a preferred bell time option, based on both cost and service.
A clear picture of the resources necessary to change the bell schedule countywide.
A comparison of the cost of regular education vs. non-traditional education.
Details of student characteristics.
We have:
A preliminary report on FCPS transportation efficiency and complexity and a list of obstacles to achieving the stated goal.
A worthwhile step toward a consensus bell schedule that may or may not be politically viable. MPS collected comments from CAC and reworked scenarios to reflect them.
The MPS assessment of the highest cost (in terms of resources and dollars) of these scenarios in one or two pyramids in a transportation vacuum. In many regards, this repeats work done for the 1998 Task Force and in connection with a proposed pilot in the MadisonHigh School pyramid.
A list of averages rather than the specific details defined in tasks 1B and 1C of the Workplan.
Issue 2: Pyramid Vs. Cluster
We need:
To complete the MPS work plan which stated it would analyze an entire cluster to find viable solutions (p. 13, June 9th). High school pyramids within the same cluster (geographically close to one another) may be able to share bus capacity and provide additional cost or transit time savings. Only 57 percent of the routes that serve Mt.Vernon are actually in the Mt.Vernon pyramid.
We have:
Potential bell times in widely separated high school pyramids in different clusters.
A snapshot of two high school pyramids that can’t use each other’s spare capacity.
Issue 3: FCPS Transportation Efficiency
We need:
To look for additional cost and transit-time savings.
To examine a new, more efficient and cost-effective system of maintenance. There may be substantial savings to be had in how FCPS buses are serviced in both time offroad and money.
We have another report explaining that FCPS Transportation is efficient, even though we note the following in the October 26 MPS Report, p. 4:
Only 48 percent of elementary school and only 26 percent of special education bus capacity is used. Performance guideline is 60-70 percent.
Annual cost per bus is 56 percent higher than the top of the performance guideline range of $38,000 to $41,000.*
*MPS changed its “performance guideline” range in the November 7th report it for the School Board to $42,000 to $53,000. Where are these performance guidelines coming from and why is there such a big change between Oct. 26 and Nov. 7?
Maintenance and repair costs are 45 percent higher than the top of the performance range.
Issue 4: Actual vs. Eligible Riders
We need to:
Determine our true ridership and plan accordingly.
Use the count of actual riders that bus drivers collect daily to determine our true per-rider costs.
We have (October 26th report, p. 4):
A misleading report that says, “actual riders” even though MPS explained verbally that “actual” includes all students who are “eligible” to ride the bus.
Issue 5: Unused buses
FCPS owns 1,570 buses.
FCPS only has 1,160 on the road.
This leaves 410 FCPS-owned buses—26 percent of the total—not in service at any given time.
Issue 6: Existing Needs vs. Needs for Bell Schedule Change
We need to:
Separate the costs needed to meet existing service goals that are not being met from the costs needed to change the bell schedule.
Re-consider service parameters to reduce total transit time.
We know that we reached full capacity 5 years ago (DMG report). Service is no longer appropriate for students. Our routes are too long and buses are late.
The school board goal is to transport students in less than one hour. Many buses now exceed this parameter. For example, one of the earliest bus pick-up times is 5:23 a.m (Edison High School). These students ride the bus for more than one and half hours.
SLEEP PROPOSALS FOR CONTINUING WORK:
One: General Education vs. Out-of-boundary Transportation
As promised in the Workplan, answer these questions:
How much are we spending on general education transportation?
How much are we spending on out-of-boundary programs, in total and per student?
How many buses are used for each?
How much time is required for each?
Two: Uniform School Day
Rework scenarios D and E using a uniform school day to see if this would significantly reduce complications in balancing the tiers, and thus costs. Look at a uniform school day of 6 hours and 40 minutes.
Three: Avoid Split Routes
Move Scenario E forward by 10 minutes to start at 7:55. Since pickups can start as early as 7 am without violating civil twilight constraints, this would allow bus rides as long as 55 minutes, and one-way trips for in-boundary elementary school children should not exceed this anyway.
Four: Route-by-route Countywide Analysis
Look at the entire FCPS transportation system route-by-route to map the most efficient plan for FairfaxCounty. Substantial time and cost savings can be identified through this method.
Five: Obtain Public Input To Create Solutions
Conduct countywide surveys of parents and teachers to guide development of a politically viable plan. Hold public hearings now. Hear what people think.
Six: Include SLEEP in Negotiations and Fulfillment of Phase II
Allow SLEEP access to the negotiations process for Phase II. The School Board should specify that SLEEP will be involved throughout Phase II to ensure that MPS completes its Workplan. In Phase I SLEEP’s participation was limited to review and reaction.
Seven: Reach Our Goal
The goal of a reasonable bell schedule for all students must come before the needs of our buses, drivers, and special programs. We cannot afford to add any new initiatives until we have fixed our transportation system so that it works for our students.
The entire report starts on the next page—this concludes the Executive Summary.
SLEEP Comments on MPS Oct. 26, 2005, Presentation
to Community Advisory Committee
Nov. 6, 2005
We realize that this is not yet MPS’s final report. Nonetheless, we are concerned that this preliminary report does not move us as far along as we should be in the process of finding the best method of organizing a school transportation system that will support later high school and middle school start times, the goal of this study.
The consultant’s mission in this study is to recommend the best, most cost-efficient method of achieving later high school start times. The School Board’s funding amendment stated that the study will “find cost-effective alternatives” for later secondary school start times. The RFP stated in the scope of the contract that the consultant would “recommend changes that would support later start times for secondary schools.” The MPS work plan (June 9, 2005, p. 14) says MPS will “recommend the option that most closely meets the project objective to allow high schools to start at a later time while minimizing the use (of) transportation resources…”
Issue 1: Fulfillment of Current Contract
What we have so far is a very preliminary report on FCPS transportation efficiency and complexity and the difficulties of achieving the stated goal. It is essential that by the time MPS has completed this contract it will have made solid proposals to minimize the transportation costs associated with a changed bell schedule as well as the above-cited best option for FCPS to consider. SLEEP believes that MPS should be given the extra time it clearly needs to complete its work, since we do not appear to be close to a resolution of what we have all known for some time is a complex issue. MPS must fulfill its obligations under this first contract, going beyond a discussion of obstacles to a presentation of solutions, before it goes on to Phase II.
The Community Advisory Committee has made a worthwhile contribution to this process by reaching some tentative agreements about bell schedules that might be politically viable. MPS was instrumental in collecting comments, listening to them and reworking scenarios that reflected them.
At the same time, what this preliminary presentation shows us is MPS’s assessment of the highest cost (in terms of resources and dollars) of these scenarios in one or two pyramids, when seen in a transportation vacuum. In many regards, this repeats work done for the 1998 Task Force and in connection with a proposed pilot in the MadisonHigh School pyramid.)
MPS was also supposed to recommend a preferred bell time option, based on both cost and service, something it has not yet done. Areas of potential improvement and cost savings were also to be included. We have seen suggested improvements in this document, but no cost savings estimates on any of them.
Futhermore, MPS has not provided the allocated cost model as promised under Task 1B. The Workplan states,
We will apportion the fully allocated transportation costs among the specific types of transportation services provided by FCPS. Typically, these categories include regular education, non-traditional education (such as magnet and other county-wide elective educational programs), special education, and extra-curricular/sports transportation. From the resources required to transport these student groups, we will the estimate the cost of transportation on a student, mile, and bus unit bases. (page 8-9 of Workplan, June 9, 2005).
In 1C of the Workplan MPS promised to provide:
A comprehensive review of formal Board policies, administrative regulations, standard operating procedures and District business practices as they pertain to transportation operations…and define the following: Student Characteristics: The number and location of walker and eligible riders by school. Policies regarding courtesy busing, cross boundary busing, and special needs students using inclusive vs. dedicated transportation…Fleet Characteristics: The number, type, and configuration of school buses and school vehicles; school bus capacity by unit; passenger loading maximums…
Issue Two: Pyramid Vs. Cluster
We note that MPS’s work plan of June 9 said it would analyze an entire cluster (p. 13) with a view to finding viable solutions. Instead, MPS has looked at a variety of high school pyramids in different clusters. (We were not told their rationale for this change.) The impact of this may well be significant, since high school pyramids within the same cluster might have more efficiencies than noted in a review of widely separated high school pyramids.
Our transportation is so very intertwined, as noted by the fact that in the Mt. Vernon HS pyramid only 57 percent of the routes of the buses that serve Mt. Vernon are actually in the Mt. Vernon pyramid. The original plan of a cluster review might have enabled the consultant to show how buses can be shared among pyramids for improved efficiencies, much less likely when the high schools are as far apart as Mt.Vernon and Woodson, the high schools used in the final models D and E.
As a result, we don’t yet have a clear picture of true added resources needs, which the MPS June 9th work plan calls for (p. 13), but merely a snapshot of two high school pyramids that can’t use each other’s spare capacity under the new models.
Issue Three: FCPS Transportation Efficiency
We are willing to stipulate that FCPS Transportation is efficient; in fact, we expect and assume that.
However, we note (October 26 MPS Report, p. 4) that only 48 percent of elementary school and only 26 percent of special education bus capacity is being used, when the performance guideline is 60-70 percent. Also, the current annual cost per bus is 56 percent higher than the top of the performance guideline of $38,000 to $41,000. (We note that MPS has changed its “performance guideline” in the report it submitted for the Nov. 7 School Board work session to a significantly higher range, $42,000 to $53,000. Where are these performance guidelines coming from and why is there such a big change between Oct. 26 and Nov. 7?)
Similarly, maintenance and repair costs are 45 percent higher than the top of the performance range. While FairfaxCounty is a high-cost area, these figures should give FCPS cause for concern. We have heard there are substantial savings to be had in how FCPS buses are serviced in both time offroad and money, and it is time to examine a new, more efficient and cost-effective system of maintenance.
Issue Four: Actual vs. Eligible Riders
Also on p. 4, the Oct. 26 report states that to get this figure it is using “actual” passenger figures. It was explained verbally, but not in the written report, that “actual” is in fact those students who are “eligible” to ride the bus. We want to see this misinformation corrected. FCPS Transportation has true “actual” ridership figures—they are collected by bus drivers every day. Those actual figures—not inflated figures of “eligible” riders—should be used when determining amount of capacity used, as well as true per-rider cost of transportation. We cannot assess true FCPS transportation efficiency without knowing how many of our eligible riders choose another form of transportation, particularly at the high school level.
Percent of planned capacity being utilized in high school is listed as 84 percent, for example. To be frank, we don’t believe it. Both anecdotal evidence from our members, survey data, as well as actual numbers we are collecting indicate otherwise. While we are finding some buses chock full, quite a few (and not just special education or out-of-boundary) buses are carrying less than half their capacity of students daily. Again, let’s find out what our true ridership is so we can plan accordingly.
Issue Five: Unused buses
At the CAC meeting on Oct. 26, the FCPS Transportation Director told the group that FCPS owns 1,570 buses, but that only 1,160 of them are on the road. This leaves 410 FCPS-owned buses—26 percent of the total—that are not in service at any given time. The explanation for this was that those buses are being serviced, are spares or are being used by supervisors. This seems like a high percentage being put aside for these purposes, and we would like to know what the “performance guideline” for out-of-services buses is and whether there is potential here for increasing capacity without having to buy more buses. Why are supervisors driving without children on board?